letter to Bill O'Reilly
Find a Conversation
letter to Bill O'Reilly
| Thu, 09-18-2008 - 3:02pm |
read below-written by a volunteer at a Shreveport shelter to Bill O'Reilly
>
| Thu, 09-18-2008 - 3:02pm |
read below-written by a volunteer at a Shreveport shelter to Bill O'Reilly
>
I was thinking today - is it feasible to create a local registry of "shut-in" invalids, individuals who would need specific assistance in a mandatory evacuation, because they are in a wheel-chair or would otherwise need medical assistance to be relocated for a while?
Perhaps this would help emergency planning teams identify individuals they know will need this level of help, and may end up "stuck" riding out a storm, or they can have contingency plans to help get them out in time (maybe calling in emergency volunteers).
I think while some people took unnecessary risks, others really are stuck in these situations and don't have a lot of options.
I think that's the reason that it's very hard to have social programs run on a national level, because the amount of oversight to prevent abuse is cost/resource prohibitive. There will always be those who take advantage, and unfortunately, they take the attention off those who really need help. But, on a state, and particularly local level, weeding out the truly "in need" from the "users" becomes more easy. As an example, I was once in a grocery store parking lot when a woman with a small child approached me and asked if I could spare some money because her child was hungry. I responded that I didn't have any cash on me, but that I'd be more than happy to take her inside the store and buy her milk, bread, fruit and some meat. She quickly responded with "oh no, that's ok, thanks anyways". It was easy for me to offer her what she actually "needed" and when she refused, I could see that she didn't actually require the real assistance, but was just looking for easy money. But, when a program is so big (like FEMA) it becomes so much harder to actually prevent abuse.
MONTANA MOM !
MONTANA MOM !
I don't agree 100% but I can see the point, the abuses are staggering.
Personal example:
What's so wrong with just saying "clean your kid's puke up or take a hike lady?"
Volunteers or even non-volunteers shouldn't be forced to be used an abused by those they're "serving".
You bring in alcohol--you're out.
You fail to bring your kid's medicine- it gets deducted from your food stamp card or your next welfare check or your FEMA check.
As far as actual prescription needs....the insured should not be discriminated against. For goodness sakes they're the ones who are more than likely actual taxpayers.
I think what is hard with some of these generalizations